I stressed the purpose of markets being profit to stress that while initially they are good for industrialization, eventually they become less efficient at doing so. We are in agreement that initially they are helpful at developing, that’s actually why Marx believed Capitalism to pave the way for Socialism.
For your second, it absolutely matters why social safety nets appeared. Moreover, it matters why they are disappearing. Capitalism’s death clock, so to speak, is that it erodes competition as it reaches monopoly and the Rate of Profit falls. Absolute profits are raised through combination of industry and linking of the supply chain, but this has a limit. That’s why it extends outward, towards Imperialism. Capitalism will always head towards centralization, and will always head towards decreased rates of profit and increases in barriers to competition.
Marxism is scientific in that it is a working framework for analysis. I don’t know what you mean by Historical Materialism being impossible to falsify.
As for dogmatism, it isn’t impossible to find in AES states, but as a ratio of the overall population of Marxists, dogmatism is higher in the West, where Marxism is uncommon and has seen no revolution. It follows that those that haven’t tested theory to practice may have an idealistic and dogmatic interpretation of it.
As for why Marxists believe the revolution happened in Tsarist Russia first, the answer is Imperialism, as outlined by Lenin in the previous comment. Marx was not alive to see the existence of Monopoly Capitalism, and while he predicted aspects of Imperialism, it was Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism as it materialized that expanded on Marx. Imperialized countries form the weakest link in the chain of Capitalism, while developed Imperialist countries go through a process of temporary (and it must be temporary as long as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to fall exists) creates a “labor aristocracy” thay is “bribed” by the fruits of this process that de-proletarianizes the populace. We will actually potentially see the US seeing a “re-proletarianization” due to an emphasis on restarting industry as a response to decaying Imperialism, as more nations turn away from the US Empire, and potentially a revolution (though not immediately).
Honestly, it all comes down to historical materialism. You see in everything historical necessity, it was never possible for safety nets to remain in place, capitalism has to negate itself, etc. You can just point to any event, see in that the unalterable course of history and use it as an argument, but why would I accept it?
Hegelian dialectics is a perfectly working framework for analysis(I like Hegel more than Marx), but it is not scientific, is it? It is philosophical.
The point about imperial Russia is interesting. I think you lost a part of the paragraph somewhere, but I think I got it. So if re-proletarisation is necessary for revolution why is imperialism the last stage of capitalism, do we not have a sort of backwards motion here?
I think that’s a misinterpretation of Historical Materialism. The course of development isn’t rigid, nor are stages divided by hard lines but blurred. Safety Nets could remain temporarily, but you can’t expand Imperialism beyond the limits of Earth and you can’t stop the mechanisms of competition from necessitating larger trusts, only slow that rate down. As industry advances, it is required to expand, and when said expansion suffocates competition by killing off its chance of opposition, there ceases to be any benefit to Capitalism.
As for Hegel vs Marx, I would say the Idealist nature of Hegelian Dialectics negates its practicality for analyzing the real world. It’s certainly an interesting framework, but Materialism will inherently be more grounded in scientific analysis and thus practicality.
Your last paragraph is the most interesting. For starters, we have not seen a revolution in an Imperialist country, only victims of Imperialism. The reason Marxists believe it to be the last is because it chokes itself, causing Imperialized countries to revolt or decouple and cripple the profits of the Imperialist countries, which takes away from the “bribes” for the labor aristocracy. The Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall exists regardless (and if you want me to go over that I can, I think you’ve been glossing over this one but it’s actually critical for analysis of Capitalism as self-defeating as rates of profit approach zero).
This process of “re-proletarianization” is a hypothesis, not a real observation yet. We will have to watch the US working class and how it organizes (or doesn’t) in the face of tariffs and an attempt at restarting industrialization. By Imperialism’s weakening, monopoly Capitalism remains in place but without the super-profits for bribery, which means you have an increasingly socialized Proletariat in the Imperial Core and decaying Material Conditions.
Well, the argument in your first paragraph is somewhat compelling. I heard the view that the service economy can grow regardless of natural resources, but I suppose you would say to that that it is only possible in imperialistic countries that move industry elsewhere.
I will think on the matter, and maybe come up with counterarguments. I am not an economist, so the finer details of markets are eluding me. In any case, Marxism or not, let us hope for a few more decades of decadent bourgeois life.
As a rule of thumb, I mean with respect to practical analysis of the real world, rather than constrained to analysis of ideas.
Your second paragraph is spot-on. Unless you reach full automation of industry, service-based economies depend on industry of other economies.
As a concluding message, I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism text. It very accurately describes the primary mechanisms of Capitalism as it develops, and is necessary analysis even if you reject the rest of Marxism.
I enjoyed our converation, it is more fun arguing with people on the internet when they are not idiots.
But I wonder, do you consider maths a science? Also, there are practices thay deal with practical matters and “the real world” that are not scientific. Like natural philosophy. I think method and rigour are more important than subject.
I appreciate it too, though I wouldn’t call this “arguing” so much as talking. I would call what the other user was trying to do “arguing,” haha.
Generally, science requires experimentation and observation, mathematics generally doesn’t fall into that category. Marxism generally does, as it is a toolset for observing and experimenting with human organization and social relations. You could call it “sociology” and be mostly correct, though that encompasses non-Marxian views of sociology as well as Marxian. I think when you get to this point in the specifics, the labels don’t actually matter as much except for shorthand descriptors.
I stressed the purpose of markets being profit to stress that while initially they are good for industrialization, eventually they become less efficient at doing so. We are in agreement that initially they are helpful at developing, that’s actually why Marx believed Capitalism to pave the way for Socialism.
For your second, it absolutely matters why social safety nets appeared. Moreover, it matters why they are disappearing. Capitalism’s death clock, so to speak, is that it erodes competition as it reaches monopoly and the Rate of Profit falls. Absolute profits are raised through combination of industry and linking of the supply chain, but this has a limit. That’s why it extends outward, towards Imperialism. Capitalism will always head towards centralization, and will always head towards decreased rates of profit and increases in barriers to competition.
Marxism is scientific in that it is a working framework for analysis. I don’t know what you mean by Historical Materialism being impossible to falsify.
As for dogmatism, it isn’t impossible to find in AES states, but as a ratio of the overall population of Marxists, dogmatism is higher in the West, where Marxism is uncommon and has seen no revolution. It follows that those that haven’t tested theory to practice may have an idealistic and dogmatic interpretation of it.
As for why Marxists believe the revolution happened in Tsarist Russia first, the answer is Imperialism, as outlined by Lenin in the previous comment. Marx was not alive to see the existence of Monopoly Capitalism, and while he predicted aspects of Imperialism, it was Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism as it materialized that expanded on Marx. Imperialized countries form the weakest link in the chain of Capitalism, while developed Imperialist countries go through a process of temporary (and it must be temporary as long as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to fall exists) creates a “labor aristocracy” thay is “bribed” by the fruits of this process that de-proletarianizes the populace. We will actually potentially see the US seeing a “re-proletarianization” due to an emphasis on restarting industry as a response to decaying Imperialism, as more nations turn away from the US Empire, and potentially a revolution (though not immediately).
Honestly, it all comes down to historical materialism. You see in everything historical necessity, it was never possible for safety nets to remain in place, capitalism has to negate itself, etc. You can just point to any event, see in that the unalterable course of history and use it as an argument, but why would I accept it?
Hegelian dialectics is a perfectly working framework for analysis(I like Hegel more than Marx), but it is not scientific, is it? It is philosophical.
The point about imperial Russia is interesting. I think you lost a part of the paragraph somewhere, but I think I got it. So if re-proletarisation is necessary for revolution why is imperialism the last stage of capitalism, do we not have a sort of backwards motion here?
I think that’s a misinterpretation of Historical Materialism. The course of development isn’t rigid, nor are stages divided by hard lines but blurred. Safety Nets could remain temporarily, but you can’t expand Imperialism beyond the limits of Earth and you can’t stop the mechanisms of competition from necessitating larger trusts, only slow that rate down. As industry advances, it is required to expand, and when said expansion suffocates competition by killing off its chance of opposition, there ceases to be any benefit to Capitalism.
As for Hegel vs Marx, I would say the Idealist nature of Hegelian Dialectics negates its practicality for analyzing the real world. It’s certainly an interesting framework, but Materialism will inherently be more grounded in scientific analysis and thus practicality.
Your last paragraph is the most interesting. For starters, we have not seen a revolution in an Imperialist country, only victims of Imperialism. The reason Marxists believe it to be the last is because it chokes itself, causing Imperialized countries to revolt or decouple and cripple the profits of the Imperialist countries, which takes away from the “bribes” for the labor aristocracy. The Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall exists regardless (and if you want me to go over that I can, I think you’ve been glossing over this one but it’s actually critical for analysis of Capitalism as self-defeating as rates of profit approach zero).
This process of “re-proletarianization” is a hypothesis, not a real observation yet. We will have to watch the US working class and how it organizes (or doesn’t) in the face of tariffs and an attempt at restarting industrialization. By Imperialism’s weakening, monopoly Capitalism remains in place but without the super-profits for bribery, which means you have an increasingly socialized Proletariat in the Imperial Core and decaying Material Conditions.
What do you mean when you say “scientific”?
Well, the argument in your first paragraph is somewhat compelling. I heard the view that the service economy can grow regardless of natural resources, but I suppose you would say to that that it is only possible in imperialistic countries that move industry elsewhere.
I will think on the matter, and maybe come up with counterarguments. I am not an economist, so the finer details of markets are eluding me. In any case, Marxism or not, let us hope for a few more decades of decadent bourgeois life.
As a rule of thumb, I mean with respect to practical analysis of the real world, rather than constrained to analysis of ideas.
Your second paragraph is spot-on. Unless you reach full automation of industry, service-based economies depend on industry of other economies.
As a concluding message, I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism text. It very accurately describes the primary mechanisms of Capitalism as it develops, and is necessary analysis even if you reject the rest of Marxism.
I enjoyed our converation, it is more fun arguing with people on the internet when they are not idiots.
But I wonder, do you consider maths a science? Also, there are practices thay deal with practical matters and “the real world” that are not scientific. Like natural philosophy. I think method and rigour are more important than subject.
I appreciate it too, though I wouldn’t call this “arguing” so much as talking. I would call what the other user was trying to do “arguing,” haha.
Generally, science requires experimentation and observation, mathematics generally doesn’t fall into that category. Marxism generally does, as it is a toolset for observing and experimenting with human organization and social relations. You could call it “sociology” and be mostly correct, though that encompasses non-Marxian views of sociology as well as Marxian. I think when you get to this point in the specifics, the labels don’t actually matter as much except for shorthand descriptors.